Appendix 11

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report

COMMITTEE DATE: 12th June 2017

APPLICATION No: LA11/2016/0541/O

APPLICATION TYPE: Outline

PROPOSAL: Infill dwelling between 34 & 32 Letterkenny Road, Derry

LOCATION: Lands between 34 & 32 Letterkenny Road, Derry

APPLICANT: Patricia McGlinchey, 34 Letterkenny Road, Derry

AGENT: Carol McIlvar, The Gadda Building, 89 Main Street, Garvagh

ADVERTISEMENT: 12/7/2016

STATUTORY EXPIRY: 27/7/2016

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE: Refusal

All planning application forms, drawings, letters etc. relating to this planning application are available

to view on www.planningni.gov.uk

1. Description of Proposed DevelopmentInfill dwelling

2. EIA Determination

The proposal is not EIA development.

3. Site and Surrounding Area

Site consists of the south-eastern portion of the side garden of a large two storey dwelling. The

eastern boundary with 32 Letterkenny Road is a 2.0m high mixed hedge. The southern and south-

eastern boundary is defined by a 7.0m high steep bank (the site being at the top). The western

boundary is defined by the edge of the driveway to the applicant's dwelling at 34 Letterkenny

Road, or where it abuts the remainder of the applicant's garden, is undefined on the ground. The

northern boundary with Letterkenny Road consists of the existing entrance to 34 Letterkenny

Road as it is proposed to share the accesses. The area generally is of rolling fields with mature

Appendix 11

boundaries. There are 2 No detached dwellings, one on either side of this site and a builder's yard

and sheds to the south.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

SITE LOCATION MAP

Appendix 11

4. Site Constraints

Site lies in a rural setting 2 kilometres south-west of the southern development limit of

Londonderry as set down in the Derry Area Plan 2011. In the above-mentioned development plan

the site lies in a former green belt, an Area of Minerals Constraint and an Area of High Amenity

Landscape. In addition the site will take its access off a Protected Route.

5. Neighbour Notification Report

The 3 neighbours at 32 and 34 Letterkenny Road and 8b Ballougry Road were notified.

6. Relevant Site History

A/2000/0606/F, Erection of replacement two storey dwelling and attached double

domestic garage, Full approval granted 2 May 2001

A/1996/0161, Replacement dwelling, Outline Refused 5 September 1996

A/1996/0162, Replacement dwelling, Outline Refused 5 September 1996

A/1995/0663, Replacement dwelling, Outline Refused 7 December 1995

A/1993/0522, Replacement dwelling, Outline Refused 20 June 1994

7. Policy Framework

Derry Area Plan 2011

SPPSNI.

PPS21 policies CTY 1 – Development in the Countryside, CTY 8 – Ribbon Development

PPS21 annex 1 consequential amendment to policy AMP 3: Access to Protected Routes of

PPS3 Access Movement and Parking.

8. Consultee Responses

TransportNI's view is that the proposal would be contrary to the Protected Routes policy

AMP3 and should be refused for that reason.

Environmental Health advises that they have considered the letter of objection and that,

as no details of the foul sewage treatment has been provided, that they would require

details of the position of the septic tank and the discharge therefrom. They also cautioned

that the site was close to a builder's yard and that a loss of residential amenity due to

noise was likely and that the developer should appoint an acoustic consultant to produce

a noise impact assessment of the activities coming from that builder's yard. Should Council

Appendix 11

take the view that this proposal is acceptable, an acoustic report and details of the

position of the septic tank should be sought and approved before the issue of any approval

notice.

NIWater has no objection.

Loughs Agency has no objections.

As a watercourse ran along the southern boundary of the site, Shared Environmental

Services was consulted and they advised that the potential impact of this proposal on

Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites has been

assessed in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 43 (1) of the Conservation

(Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended). The proposal

would not be likely to have a significant effect on the features of any European site.

9. Representations

3 neighbours were notified. One neighbour has objected on the grounds that his septic tank is

located beyond his own site boundary and on the application site. He states that his dwelling at

32 shares the septic tank with 34 Letterkenny Road and is concerned that the proposal may result

in 3 dwellings using that tank and exceed the capacity. The developer has written to Council on

this matter and stated that there are two septic tanks in the grounds of 34 Letterkenny Road and

that she is willing to grant an easement to the objector for any future foul sewerage needs that

may arise. The objector has been advised of this. Council's view is that easements that may be

held by third parties over the application site are civil matters and should not be used as an

impediment to the consideration of a proposal.

10. Planning Assessment, including Other Material Considerations

Section 6 (4) of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires the Council to make planning

decisions in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate

otherwise.

Therefore, this proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Derry Area Plan 2011

(DAP 2011), so far as it is material to the proposal, as well as other material considerations

including SPPS and PPS21.

Appendix 11

The site is in former Greenbelt in DAP 2011. The policy provisions of PPS21 now take precedence

over the area plan policies in respect of greenbelts.

The SPPS is also a material consideration. It introduces transitional arrangements which will

operate until the Council’s Plan Strategy has been adopted. During this period planning authorities

will apply the existing policy (contained in the PPSs, referred to as the retained policy) together

with the SPPS. Any conflict between the SPPS and the retained policy must be resolved in favour

of the SPPS.

PPS8 – Ribbon Development

For the development to be considered as an infill opportunity under policy CTY8 it must be

shown that the site lies in a substantial and continuously built up frontage of 3 or more

buildings. The developer has argued that Planning Appeals Commission appeal history has

confirmed that detached garages in the grounds of a dwelling constitute a building as set down

in the definition of a built up frontage for policy CTY8 and that they can be taken into

consideration when assessing the development pattern along a public road. It is considered that

the actual visual impact of a ribbon of development along a public road is material to the

consideration of infill opportunities. For the proposal to comply with policy CTY8, there must

first be the visible gap in the row of roadside development. In this case, the site proposed to be

developed is substantially screened from the public road. The existing dwelling at 34

Letterkenny Road (the developer’s home) is at a ground level about 6.0m below that of the

adjacent road and has a height of about 8.0m. The detached garage is at the same ground level

and is about 6.0m high. Due to substantial planting of trees between the road edge and the

application site, only the roof of the dwelling is glimpsed when viewed from the Letterkenny

Road.

Appendix 11

VIEW OF SITE FROM ACCESS POINT

VIEW OF SITE FROM LETTERKENNY ROAD Existing development is well screened and not readily

visible from the public road due to the steep and landscaped embankment.

The garage is not readily visible and the roof of it can only be looked down upon from the

Letterkenny Road. The adjacent single storey dwelling at 32 Letterkenny Road is close to the road

and at a level about 1.0m below the road. The neighbouring dwelling has the appearance of a

developed roadside plot whereas the applicant's dwelling and garage are in comparison, well

screened. Policy CTY8 requires that the site to be developed respects the existing development

pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size and meets other planning and

environmental requirements. In this case, apart from sharing an existing vehicular access, the site

has no frontage onto the road. As there is no common frontage there is no gap.

The policy defines a substantial and built up frontage as including a line of 3 or more buildings along

a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear. It is also clear from the site location

map and aerial photo above that there is development in the form of large sheds to the rear of the

application site.

Access onto a protected route

With regards to the intensification of a vehicular access onto a Protected Route, policy AMP3 states

the following:

Appendix 11

The Department will restrict the number of new accesses and control the level of use of existing

accesses onto Protected Routes as follows:

Planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal involving direct access, or the

intensification of the use of an existing access in the following cases:

A replacement Dwelling

A Farm Dwelling

A Dwelling Serving an Established Commercial or Industrial Enterprise

Other Categories of Development - approval may be justified in particular cases for other

developments which would meet the criteria for development in the countryside and access

cannot reasonably be obtained from an adjacent minor road. Where this cannot be achieved

proposals will be required to make use of an existing vehicular access onto protected routes.

If the proposed development met the requirements of policy CTY8 and was considered

acceptable as an in fill opportunity, the last bullet point above (Other Categories of

development) would apply. Under that criteria it is stated that approval may be justified.

However, as there is no land to be infilled with a dwelling when viewed from the public road, the

site does not meet the criteria of policy CTY8 as an infill opportunity and it is not therefore

exempt from the Protected Routes policy as defined in policy AMP3 above.

T’NI recommends refusal on the grounds that the development proposed will result in the

intensification of the use of an existing access onto Letterkenny road which is a protected route.

If permitted the proposal would prejudice the safety and convenience of road users (see section

12 refusal reason 3).

CTY14 Rural Character

Development of the proposed site would create a ribbon of development resulting in an adverse

impact upon the rural character of the area and thus contrary to Policy CTY14.

11. Conclusion and Recommendation

It is considered that as the building at Nos. 32 and 34 are well screened and cannot be readily seen

from public vantage points on the Letterkenny road, it cannot be considered that the application

site lies along a road frontage. The proposal represents no exception to the strict control of

housing development in the countryside exercised by policy CTY1 and should be refused for that

Appendix 11

reason. If the proposal is not an infill development under policy CTY8, it is therefore also not an

exemption to policy AMP3 and should be refused on Protected Routes grounds. Given the location

of the proposed dwelling in the side garden of no. 34 Letterkenny Road, there is concern that the

proposed dwelling would experience an unacceptable degree of overlooking.

12. Proposed Reasons for Refusal

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable

Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this

development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a

settlement.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable

Development in the Countryside in that site is not within a substantial and continuously

built up frontage and thereby does not represent an infill opportunity. The proposal

would, if permitted, result in the creation of ribbon development along the Letterkenny

Road.

3. The proposed development would, if permitted, prejudice the safety and

convenience of road users since it is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3 Access,

Movement & Parking, Policy AMP 3 “Access to Protected Routes” in that the

development proposal will result in the provision of a new access onto A40

Letterkenny Road, a Protected Route.

4. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable

Development in the Countryside in that the building would, if permitted, create a

ribbon of development thereby resulting in suburban style build-up of development

at this location.